Skip to comments.Is Rubio Eligible?
Posted on 07/31/2012 2:58:34 PM PDT by Perdogg
I would like to address an issue that is apparently of concern to a significant number of people. In my Ask Fred column, several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose. They contend that at least one of his parents were required at the time of his birth to have been a citizen for him to fulfill the constitutional requirement of eligibility, even though he was born on American soil.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredthompsonsamerica.com ...
“Thats what the courts are supposed to be for.”
If that be the case then there will be no justice. Federal Courts are all but incapable of justice.
“But the way things are supposed to be is just a very distant memory. The system has been sabotaged. We no longer have the checks and balances, separation of powers, Constitutional government, the rule of law rather than the rule of men, or electoral consequences holding elected officials accountable. Everything the Founders built into the system to make it work has been disabled. And that is the really sobering thing about this issue.”
I agree except that I think i have less confidence that the system was ever suppose to work as your allege. Men appointed by the very officers they are suppose to judge will not serve as check.
Oh ok....ha ha. Thanks for clearing hat up without addressing any of the issues.
I really like your list of “experts”. Ha ha
Yep....your right just because Ginsburg (a judge) or Ted Kennedy (an elected official) says it....that means its right. Dennis Kucinich was an elected official...does that mean his opinion is more important than mine?
How about Rep. Hank Johnson? He is an elected official as well....maybe we should heed his warning about Guam tipping over. He is an elected official after all....which clearly means his opinion is more important than mine or anyone else’s. We are just low importance people.
Ha ha,....you must be an attorney as well....I can tell by your clearly well thought out justification. Ha ha
I think their are few more Rubio threads out there....you might should run along and help out with this public service you are offering us low caliber, low importance people.
Ha ha...thanks for the education ha ha
You are utterly incapable of following a logical argument. I brought up Jesus because if you measured Him with the same stick you’re measuring everybody else He would be the world’s biggest failure.
It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with your argument, and why it is total bunk. It’s actually got a name, the logic you’re trying to use. It’s called an argument from authority: “since nobody else agrees with you, you must be wrong.”
“The earth is shaking, buildings are falling apart - but if the experts say the ground is not shaking then you must be wrong if you say it is.” That logic is wrong. Truth is truth, even if none of the “experts” acknowledge it.
In fact, that’s precisely what is meant by “unalienable Rights”. They exist even if nobody in authority acknowledges it. All the authorities can do is either abide by those rights, or violate them. They can’t deny them away. The basis of the argument you’re making denies the reality of objective truth and unalienable rights. That fallacy is dangerous.
I had hoped you would be able to see it more clearly if you saw your own fingers pointing at JESUS and calling Him an utter failure because He died alone with all the cool people condemning Him and the vast majority of the normal people spitting on Him and mocking Him.
Even the image of your own self mocking and spitting on Jesus wasn’t enough to shake you out of your twisted thinking. I’m just gonna submit you to Jesus, because it is clear that nothing I can say or do is going to pull you out of this place you’re at.
For the record, I am not worthy to be counted with Jesus in any way, shape, or form, and the joy of my life is that He in His great mercy - just because of Who He is - loved me anyway, took the rightful punishment I deserved for my sin, and saved me. I have been buried with Him through baptism into His death, and because I am connected to Him I will also rise with Him. He is everything. Anything good that comes from me or from my life is His gift. My message to anybody who is willing to listen is that if God can love somebody like me, He can love anybody. The one thing I cannot live without is Him, so if He gets thrown out the door so do I, and what anybody else thinks about that makes no difference to me. He is my life.
Regarding legal opinion, since when has Rush Limbaugh been a binding legal opinion? You’re not citing legal opinions. I’ve given you two cases where the legal opinion of a judge was a sharia ruling - a judgment based upon no evidence whatsoever. Is that problematic to you at all?
When you say “no opinion of any weight, at law or in politics”, you’re writing off all the people I mentioned earlier - most specifically HAWAII STATE REGISTRAR ALVIN ONAKA, WHO HAS INDIRECTLY CONFIRMED THAT THE BIRTH RECORD HAWAII HAS FOR OBAMA IS NOT LEGALLY VALID.
You write off the people who think this issue is important as if their opinion has no “weight, at law or in politics”. That’s a logical fallacy also, called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It’s where you say no true Scotsman is blond, because anybody who is blond must not be a true Scotsman. It’s circular reasoning and therefore a logical fallacy. This is basic Logic 101.
Your reasoning is badly flawed. It is not based on evidence but on fallacies. Your method seems to be to try to isolate and alienate anybody who disagrees with you, which is an Alinsky tactic. You have ignored the substance of both the arguments and facts that have been presented to you. Because of those things it is a waste of my time to talk to you. In your current condition you cannot process what is being presented to you.
Yeah, I think one of the Founding Fathers wrote that they should have spent more time on the judicial branch. That’s one of the very weak parts of the system of accountability.
The term is not “unalienable” it is “inalienable” — you do not even know what the Constitution says, and you claim to be an expert? http://www.inalienable-rights.org/ a site you might like, above. Hey, I usually don’t get petty about typos and spelling, I make my share, but under the circumstances -—
Also, the fact that you are wrong on the “two parent, born on US Soil” issue does NOT mean that I am not curious about Obama’s past, as I know Obama is a liar.
I think Obama’s Daddy is Frank Marshal Davis, which makes the Birther argument against Obama a waste of time, money and resources.
People really are waking up to the lawlessness, which is the major reason I care about this issue. So many laws have been broken. Now that the lawlessness has become more blatant in other areas people ARE seeing it for what it is, and I think it has shaken some people out of their sleep on this issue too.
It means a lot to me that before he died - in fact, less than 5 hours before he died - Andrew Breitbart acknowledged the validity of this issue in a phone conversation with Sheriff Joe Arpaio. His objection had always been that there wasn’t enough evidence and nobody had standing to get evidence, but he sought out Arpaio to learn about the evidence and was willing to receive it when he heard it. That’s skepticism that I can respect. Breitbart could have shocked the world if he had been able to make so much as one public comment in support of Arpaio’s investigation and findings; he died before the sun could even rise after his “conversion” on this issue.
You present the crux of the dilemma of this whole argument. If ‘jus soli’ is the one and only birth criteria then every ‘anchor’ baby has the right by birth to be POTUSA, as long as such person plays their residence time appropriately. Expediency and choices for any particular person beyond the recorded deliberations of the Founding Fathers does not serve the intentions of the Founders; it can certainly lead to cases like Obama’s. Being in much the same situation as Rubio I can relate to his but I can accept my status as ineligible even though a vet of WWII.
I specifically looked it up in my pocket Constitution that I got from the Lions Club, before posting anything. I’ve got it right here by my computer. It’s got the Declaration of Independence printed before the Constitution, and it says “unalienable”. If there’s a typo, it’s from the Lions Club’s printing.
The point remains the same though: those rights were endowed by the Creator and they can’t be snuffed out simply because the authorities refuse to acknowledge them. The truth is the truth, even if nobody believes it.
You list no experts at all, yet you attack my experts?
You are alone. Nobody agrees with you, nobody of any import.
It is YOUR job to convince legal authority and Conservative leadership that you are correct.
You have failed to do so.
I am accused of using a “argument from authority” -— even though it is, to any normal person, ridiculous to make legal arguments that nobody will listen to but your fringe birther types.
However, “Jesus” is used to, somehow, prove me wrong?
Can you think of a higher authority?
I am guessing that Jesus is a bit irritated in His name being used in such careless fashion.
In fact, I think there is a Commandment against such misuse.
You Birthers need to give it up.
You have no legal basis for your claims.
I believe that, at this point, every single member of the Supreme Court would interpret the term "natural born citizen" so as to make Obama qualified. I think it would be too humiliating for them to say that they just sat there for nearly four years watching an illegal presidency without doing or saying anything about it. They will not do that.
"I guess I shouldn't have administered the oath of office," explained Chief Justice Roberts the day after ruling that Obama's whole presidency was illegal. "We'll just have to void all that was done during the last four years. Tomorrow we'll be ordering the Treasury to retroactively reverse last year's extension of the tax cuts. We're asking for everyone's patience, understanding and cooperation in the collection of the overdue taxes and penalties. The day after tomorrow we'll get to work on invalidating the military decisions. I guess we owe the bin Laden family an apology. You just have no idea how busy we're gong to be straightening all this out. Once again, our apologies for not acting sooner, but we had so many other cases."
The dead bodies that have resulted from this coverup; the forgery and fraud; the perjury; the threats to the media, to the Clintons, etc; the imprisonment of Lt Col Terry Lakin; the wasted taxpayer money spent on hiding records; the hiding of some records, destruction of others, and falsification of others; the libel; the courts’ claims that these crimes are nobody’s business..... those things all matter.
To me, this has never really been about Obama, but about a system that has utterly failed in every way and crapped on everything I hold dear. Like truth, life, justice, and the rule of law.
The establishment has no idea why any of that matters to us peons.
I’m not going to waste my time explaining it again. Anybody who is capable of following my illustration has already done so. That’s apparently not you, so we’ll just let that one zoom over your head.
I agree. The courts are worthless at this point. At this point it’s the state and local government officials who can step up and play for keeps, and/or the voters. Not just on this issue but on ALL the lawlessness.
Point taken. I keep thinking that people don’t understand because it hasn’t been explained quite right, but some either can’t or won’t understand no matter what they’re shown.
Rubio is neither eligible, nor, conservative.
It would be a disaster to pick him as Romney’s running mate. The Dems will bring up his eligibility, guaranteed
Too bad we have wimps in the “conservative” media who still attack those who bring up Obama Eligibility. However, you can be sure the Dems will go on the offensive with Eligibility if Rubio is the nominee
I listed historical context with Hamilton and Jay.
You cite “people of importance”. Ha ha.
I am alone...ha ha...except for everyone else on this thread you disagrees with you....wait they are “nobody of any import”. Ha ha ha
So what was Jay referring to when he rejected Hamilton’s language? Was he someone of “import”?
Where does Rep Hank Johnson rank on your list of “import”? He is after all an “elected official”. Ha ha ha
It’s not my job to convince anyone of anything. If you choose to make up the law as it suits your political agenda...go ahead. Interpreting the rules to fit your or Rubio’s agenda certainly puts you in with the class of folks defined as “import”. Ha ha. Those folks routinely like to operate under a different set of rules than those of us of low “import”. Ha ha
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.